Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type. ;-) Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived. It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as "stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car". Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output 440. Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of the limited production version of the new GTO. So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it. Eisboch I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php Eisboch |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eisboch" wrote in message ... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php Eisboch That guy can certainly put some power into his peddling! Maybe a slick road surface helped................;-) |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php Eisboch That guy can certainly put some power into his peddling! Maybe a slick road surface helped................;-) Damn spell check..........'pedaling'.........not 'peddling'. ;-) |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php I wonder how many calories you burn drifting a bicycle for 10 minutes? |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() JimH wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type. ;-) Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived. It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as "stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car". Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output 440. Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of the limited production version of the new GTO. So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it. Eisboch I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) Grow up and act like a man. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type. ;-) Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived. It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as "stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car". Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output 440. Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of the limited production version of the new GTO. So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it. Eisboch I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) Grow up and act like a man. Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. basskisser wrote: JimH wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type. ;-) Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived. It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as "stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car". Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output 440. Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of the limited production version of the new GTO. So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it. Eisboch I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) Grow up and act like a man. Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by. Kevin wouldn't know the definition of a "man" if it bitch slapped him in the head. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote: JimH wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type. ;-) Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived. It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as "stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car". Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output 440. Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of the limited production version of the new GTO. So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it. Eisboch I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) Grow up and act like a man. Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things *just do by*. Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: JimH wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type. ;-) Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived. It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as "stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car". Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output 440. Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of the limited production version of the new GTO. So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it. Eisboch I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-) Grow up and act like a man. Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things *just do by*. Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie. Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an error in typesetting or a grammatical error? If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are "special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of anything and everything. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ding Dong: Chuck Gould | General | |||
OT Ping Chuck Gould | General | |||
Ping: Chuck Gould | General | |||
So where is...................... | General | |||
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General |